]]>By: albatrosshttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/20/sunday-links-77/comment-page-1/#comment-2130207
Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:17:00 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=22816#comment-2130207Practical freedom has a lot to do with population density. In a sparsely populated place, you can ride your car, 4wd, or dirtbike pretty freely without bugging anyone else, you can drive on the public roads with a limited impact on others, etc. As population density goes up, your freedom almost has to decrease, simply because there’s less room to swing your fist before you find the tip of my nose.
]]>By: Martyhttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/20/sunday-links-77/comment-page-1/#comment-2129361
Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:30:28 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=22816#comment-2129361we have tickets to John Prine for his St. Louis show- it’ll be our first time. Really looking forward to it…
]]>By: John Spraggehttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/20/sunday-links-77/comment-page-1/#comment-2127974
Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:23:20 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=22816#comment-2127974In a genuinely minarchist society, nothing like the car culture we presently know would exist. The signs call the American interstate highway system the “Eisenhower Interstate system”; they might also call it the eminent domain and 90% top income tax rate interstate system.

The car combines power engineering inefficiency (strapping a 500 kg engine and a 1200 kg car body to each 80 kg person) with necessarily imperfect operators; political and other marketing considerations dictate the government must extend license privileges to people who have demonstrated few, and in some cases virtually no skills. This combination means the car requires a greater infrastructure commitment, both in terms of space and money, than any other mode of transportation.

So who does the car make free? Not pedestrians mowed down in crosswalks. Not those of us taxed to pay for the infrastructure. Not people who have had houses and businesses bulldozed to make way for road development.

]]>By: Andrew Rothhttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/20/sunday-links-77/comment-page-1/#comment-2125176
Mon, 21 Nov 2011 07:01:25 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=22816#comment-2125176Does the Illinois felony eavesdropping statute apply to television camera crews recording openly in public? I’d love to see the shitstorm created by a dirty Chicago police goon squad threatening or arresting a TV camera crew on live satellite video feed. The CPD wouldn’t have a chance in hell of wiggling out of that sticky wicket.

I also doubt that the Illinois eavesdropping law will be upheld by the federal courts if challenged. The courts seem to uphold the First Amendment more consistently than they do other amendments (e.g., #2 and #4); upholding a bullshit law with an unmistakable chilling effect on the press would be completely out of character for the appellate courts or SCOTUS.

And while we’re at it, fuck the mayor. Rahm Emmanuel is clearly either corrupt or negligent in allowing the CPD to enforce such a law, but aside from that our politicians, especially those in Chicago, need to be told to fuck off every now and then. It’s like slamming the door in the Queen’s face: it does a nation good.

]]>By: nigmalghttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/20/sunday-links-77/comment-page-1/#comment-2123341
Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:12:53 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=22816#comment-2123341“Read the article, look at the photos, watch the video. Spraying pepper-spray down someone’s throat? That is attempted murder. Why didn’t someone shoot the damn cops? Oh yeah, because they are The State and even with full knowledge that they are being filmed, do not GIVE A SHIT because The State is accountable to no one.”

Read the article, look at the photos, watch the video. Spraying pepper-spray down someone’s throat? That is attempted murder. Why didn’t someone shoot the damn cops? Oh yeah, because they are The State and even with full knowledge that they are being filmed, do not GIVE A SHIT because The State is accountable to no one.

Dismantle The State.

]]>By: Matthttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/20/sunday-links-77/comment-page-1/#comment-2121896
Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:26:23 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=22816#comment-2121896“Convential wisdom says drunk driving has a higher rate of accidents than sober driving. I think the onus is on you to show otherwise.”

Conventional wisdom. Pfft. Conventional wisdom would have you drilling a hole in your skull to let the evil spirits out.

How about elderly driving? Drowsy driving? Driving while hopped up on cough medication?

Let’s not get distracted too much. The fact is that driving drunk isn’t a genuine crime because there is no victim, but tax-feeding power pigs use it as an excuse to control you.

]]>By: Joshuahttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/20/sunday-links-77/comment-page-1/#comment-2121647
Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:45:43 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=22816#comment-2121647I think the real question is: what percentage of the people who died in alcohol-related accidents weren’t wearing their seat belt? Given only the numbers above, it could be as high as 100%.
]]>By: Omarhttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/20/sunday-links-77/comment-page-1/#comment-2121615
Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:41:53 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=22816#comment-2121615

Now you’ve got two variables. The drunk-driving-fatality statitistic in that article only has one: “sober” or not “sober.”

I think we are making a reasonable assumption that there are more sober drivers at any given time than drunk drivers. This is actually wherevthe math very much supports the idea that these measures are unnecessary. The rate of drunk driving is low, as are the chances of actually causing an accident while drunk.

Convential wisdom says drunk driving has a higher rate of accidents than sober driving. I think the onus is on you to show otherwise.

Let’s say for argument that 1% of drivers are drunk at a given time and out of the total number of accidents, 50% of accidents are caused by drunk driving. Say there are 1000 people driving and 10 accidents. 5 accidents are caused by drunk drivers and 5 by sober drivers. This makes the crash rate of drunk drivers 5/10, or 50%. 5 out of the 990 sober drivers have an accident. That puts the rate of sober drivers crashing at 5/990 or around 0.5%.

In this scenario, drunk driving is 100 times more dangerous than sober driving.

Like another commentator said, I agree with your sentiment. But the math is incorrect.

]]>By: Matthttp://www.theagitator.com/2011/11/20/sunday-links-77/comment-page-1/#comment-2121518
Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:28:18 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=22816#comment-2121518“If asians were 10% of the population and causing one third of road accidents,”

Now you’ve got two variables. The drunk-driving-fatality statitistic in that article only has one: “sober” or not “sober.”